The second amendment is pretty short and vague. People literally think Obama is coming to take the guns away ! i hear this every day

i don't know.. in MA 1978, i had to take live fire test for permit.. i thinks that is a good idea ..

One inch at a time- eventually you go the mile.Better to defend every flukin inch RIGHT NOW, then to look back on a long mile that you'll never get back......

Rights are lost bit by bit, they are never restored bit by bit.

I take a back seat to no one on defending the rights enumerated in the Constitution (not granted, government is supposed to protect rights, it does not grant them. If only we all insisted on a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment we would be a lot better off), but the indignation of people about Mirandizing this guy (now moot anyway, he was) is pretty dumb. a) all it means is that his statements might not be admissible, which hardly matters as far as getting a conviction in this case, and b) he can still shut up and he can still request an attorney regardless, which pretty much everyone in this country already knows from the countless police procedurals on TV.

And the Second Amendment is only vague to illiterates ignorant of history. My opinion on that is that most people bring the modern definition of 'state', i.e. nation-state (which is why the fruit loops think it's about national defense), to the interpretation when the writers actually meant one, several, or all of the States. The clear intent is that the states and the people cannot have their capacity to resist a tyrannical central government by arms if necessary taken from them. More importantly, the Founders also believed that when the people have that right it serves as a check on government even if it is (one would hope) never used. If you don't believe me check out Federalist 46. Thus, even those who have never owned a gun have benefited from the 2nd Amendment. There is a reason why they made it #2, coming after their own rebellion fought by citizen soldiers.

i hardly think i am illeterate of history pappy..... just because you, doesn't mean you shoul.d

I see peolple all the time that scare me with gun behavior,,, really stupid stuff

i took a fire test at 18 to get a handgun permit.. i don't see a problem with that

Sorry strand, I was just being snarky. Having to deal with the insanely ignorant 'progressives' over here in the PRV does that to me.

The implication of the 2nd really is that the Federal government Constitutionally has no business in gun control at all. The flip side that the NRA and others would prefer to obfuscate is that (my interpretation of it) the states probably do and should have very broad powers to 'regulate' guns. But lets not spread that around.

A question worth pondering IMO: Are there other ways of dealing with an oppressive government besides civil war? Maybe protests, strikes, boycotts, sit-downs? Would they be any less effective, result in less death and destruction and social upheaval? Looking at Syria, one might conclude that mass protests were ineffective and unarmed people were just getting slaughtered, but look at it now that it has gone fully violent on both sides. More and more people are getting killed, the country is getting completely destroyed and space has been made for more and more radicals, yet the initial goal is not particularly closer. Maybe this idea of violently fighting off the government as a means of change is archaic. I don't have the answer myself, but it seems to me people would be better off taking productive roles rather than focusing on some doomsday fantasy of shooting each other.

Logged

"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is not a path and leave a trail." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. – John Kenneth Galbrait